BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATPADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by the accused person against conviction and sentence. Upon the final report filed by the Investigation Officer, the Second Additional Assistant Sessions Judge of Vellore, on committal of the case from the Judicial Second Class Magistrate -I, Vellore framed the following charges: -

(2.) Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would say that even admitting entirely all the facts as alleged by the prosecution, tie first offence committed by the accused would not be one under S. 307, I.P.C, but only under S. 308, I.P.C. For an offence to come under S. 307, I.P.C, the act should be done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act the accused caused the death, he Would be guilty of murder. As per S. 300, I.P.C, for an act to be murder it should come under any of the four clauses contained in the opening portion of the section and should not come under any of the exceptions embodied in the same section. In this case, it is clear that the accused, as per the version of the prosecution, inflicted a simple injury on the chest of Perumal P.W.1, with a pen knife upon being accosted by both the constables and being questioned why and what he was doing there at that time. It is clear that no intention to cause death is made out and the incident happened in this spur of the moment without any premeditation and that the accused did not use nor had any dangerous weapon in his hand.

(3.) AS far as the second offence is concerned, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would point out that an essential ingredient was missing. There is no proof in the evidence on record that P. Ws.1 and 2 were discharging their duties as public servants when the occurrence happened. This is in fact an essential ingredient under S. 332, I.P.C. As per the evidence of the prosecution there is nothing to show that, these two witnesses were at the place of the occurrence in the discharge of their duties. It is pointed out apart from that they were wearing their uniforms. Normally, when police officials are sent for any duty they will be given either a slip or entries will be made in the duty register in the relevant police station. No evidence whatsoever of that kind was produced by the prosecution to show that P. Ws.1 and 2 were in the discharge of their duties at the time and place of the occurrence. Therefore, this essential ingredient being missing, an offence under S. 332, I.P.C, was not made out.